In Response to Starvation is a Myth Thread

I actually read the entire article, I forced myself to do it despite the liberal amount of cuss words. He made a good case, but he completely glossed over the effect of AT. If AT slows down your metabolism down to, say, 1600 cals a day, then eating 1600 will result in a stall. Not just slowdown in weight loss, it's a plateau.

I am far from being the only person around here who started losing by upping my calorie intake a little. My method of counting calories hasn't changed, so if I was inaccurate I'm still just as inaccurate today. According to him then I'm just a liar, or that basically I'm just hallucinating all this time. Great.

You just ignored my earlier post about your numbers and keep throwing them out there. In numerous studies (summarized in the thread linked to earlier, which has links and much good info), AT is pegged at 15% maximum, usually less and it is gradual while in deficit. It has never erased a deficit in study. NEVER. It has never been shown to cause a smaller deficit at a lower calorie consumption. NEVER. You base a lot of argument on AT but then make up unsubstantiated numbers that don't come from the AT studies.

I read your post. You said my example doesn't apply because of this 15%, but my example is just an arbitrary number to illustrate a point.

Let's use your 15% then. If maintenance is 2000 then at 15% AT reduction it would be at 1700. If I eat at 1700 according to my calculation I would have no deficit, and therefore a plateau.

Can the number be lower than 1700? Absolutely, I have read here of people who have taken actual RMR tests and got numbers as low as around 900. The OP's own number is about 1600. These are results of an actual physical test, not some theoretical number. I will take a personal RMR test result over BMR/TDEE calculation any day.

What I put out there is that people need to experiment. As Einstein said it: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If you stall and it seems too low, up it by 100 for two weeks and see what happens, and if it's seems too high (close to or at TDEE) then lower it by 100 for two weeks and evaluate. Of course if you have $60 to burn and a facility that offers RMR test, that would be the quicker way. You just gotta take the test again every time you hit a plateau.

Hexahedra said, 'I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption. '

I've also heard it called "hybernation" mode. A state of inactivity and metabolic depression.

Hexahedra said, 'I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption. '

I've also heard it called "hybernation" mode. A state of inactivity and metabolic depression.

Yes, or adaptive thermogenesis. This is an interesting article showing some seemingly slight, but distinct, differences.

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2012/12/starvation-mode-revisited.php

Thanks for posting. Funnily, I was looking for something else from him today, saw a link to that article but got distracted and did not go back.

He mentions something (and cites sources) I alluded to earlier but was more of an anecdotal comment from me - re while the average slowdown is not that much, individual outliers can vary quite a bit.

Hexahedra said, 'I don't like the term 'starvation mode', I prefer metabolic slowdown. When people eat too much below their caloric requirement the body adapts by reducing its caloric consumption. '

I've also heard it called "hybernation" mode. A state of inactivity and metabolic depression.

Yes, or adaptive thermogenesis. This is an interesting article showing some seemingly slight, but distinct, differences.

http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2012/12/starvation-mode-revisited.php

Thanks for posting. Funnily, I was looking for something else from him today, saw a link to that article but got distracted and did not go back.

He mentions something (and cites sources) I alluded to earlier but was more of an anecdotal comment from me - re while the average slowdown is not that much, individual outliers can vary quite a bit.

That's true but those are really rare cases. It isn't just an average that is below 15%, it is the vast majority of cases coming in below 15%. I have seen other studies that say 4% to 10%, also with some outliers. The trouble is that people use the evidence of these rare cases to extrapolate that it is the most likely cause of all slowdowns and stalls. But again, in none of the studies has it ever been found to cause a stall. You don't cut calories 10% and trigger a 15% MR change; the kinds of results in the studies are people eating at a significant deficit to trigger a MR reduction much smaller than that deficit. It just makes the loss slower. This is even true of the outliers who had more significant drops in their metabolism. There has been no documented case of anyone ever reducing calories without it resulting in an increased deficit. If it triggers a change in MR, it is gradual and the rate of increased deficit to decreased consumption falls below 1:1 for additional reductions.